The plausibility of John 3:18

[Reformed1689]

if you have a question of what I believe then ask me and I will tell you....but don't prescribe for me a belief I claim to reject and I won't you. Fair?

That's fair but I'm not going to rehash the past contention you and I had directly. I had reasons for posting what I did, though I don't remember what they were without going back and re-reading everything which I have no intention of doing.

 

[JonC]

That's fair but I'm not going to rehash the past contention you and I had directly. I had reasons for posting what I did, though I don't remember what they were without going back and re-reading everything which I have no intention of doing.

That's fine. My only concern was that we allow each other to express and own our views.

I respect you and think that we could have a good conversation (if we can keep our cool). I like the university you attended (I like that they do not indoctrinate into one narrow camp...or at least didn't).

Except.....come to think of it....I went in a pretty decent fellow and came out a Calvinist. I'm not sure how that happened. But I got over it.

 

[Reformed1689]

Except.....come to think of it....I went in a pretty decent fellow and came out a Calvinist. I'm not sure how that happened. But I got over it.

So you came out believing what the Bible said. THIS IS GOOD. And then got over it, this is a tragedy.

 

[Reformed1689]

(I like that they do not indoctrinate into one narrow camp...or at least didn't).

They don't. At least, I know they don't push Calvinism, but I didn't get a full on Arminian flare either. It really depends on the class.

 

[JonC]

So you came out believing what the Bible said. THIS IS GOOD. And then got over it, this is a tragedy.

At least I'm not a democrat....I have that going for me.

 

[Reformed1689]

At least I'm not a democrat....I have that going for me.

Common ground.

 

[JonC]

They don't. At least, I know they don't push Calvinism, but I didn't get a full on Arminian flare either. It really depends on the class.

That's why I was encouraging my son to go there.

Our beliefs are something that we have to work out and "own". You will see many here who have been indoctrinated into a belief that they do not truly know. That was what led me, initially, to change my degree to religion.

I've known people who could tell you the doctrine of eternal security was correct, and even give you a verse or two. But they could not defend the doctrine. That is the sad part about today's Christian environment.

Even here (I don't know why I said "even") you are going to find tares among the wheat.

 

[Reformed1689]

I've known people who could tell you the doctrine of eternal security was correct, and even give you a verse or two. But they could not defend the doctrine. That is the sad part about today's Christian environment.

Theological Illiteracy

 

[loDebar]

I like the term Scripture uses (sin as a "power" or "master" over man). We are by nature "enslaved to sin" or "sold under sin".

Sin nature is the same as saying we are sinners. Not much to it. And you are right, it often presents us as not choosing to sin (if pushed to its logical conclusions). Enslaved by sin can go both ways (because of the Gospel of Christ).

no, sin nature suggest no power to choose, or rather desire to choose differently.

 

[JonC]

no, sin nature suggest no power to choose, or rather desire to choose differently.

I do not believe "sin nature" is true, so I don't really care so much either way. But I do believe that the lost are "mastered by sin"; "sin is their master", they are "enslaved by sin" simply because that is what the Bible says. Within that context I believe free-will exists for the lost.

 

[JonC]

Thread will be closed due to the number of posts by 11 am EST. Please feel free to start another and continue what topic remains.

 

[JonC]

Theological Illiteracy

And often biblical illiteracy.

The "Christian market" is saturated with study tools but too many do not know how to approach Scripture. This should be taught in churches but too often it is not.

 

[Reformed1689]

I do not believe "sin nature" is true, so I don't really care so much either way.

Wait...what??? Were you not arguing for sin nature repeatedly earlier?

 

[Reformed1689]

This should be taught in churches but too often it is not.

I actually teach herm. in my church to teenage boys.

 

[JonC]

Wait...what??? Were you not arguing for sin nature repeatedly earlier?

Nah. Too much baggage with the idea.

 

[Reformed1689]

Nah. Too much baggage with the idea.

I'm confused then. What was the whole discussion about sin nature earlier for then?

 

[JonC]

I'm confused then. What was the whole discussion about sin nature earlier for then?

Basically we were looking at things differently. One can say that man has a "fallen nature" or a "sin nature". I believe that man is enslaved by sin (slaves to sin, sin is their master). It is similar but also different. But the end result is the same.

Those who reject the idea that sin is a power which has enslaved mankind but hold to man has possessing a "fallen nature" or a "sin nature" typically consider sin as ontological to man (and as a power that determines man's action). Sin is a manifestation of one's sinfulness.

As far as the objection to my use of "sin nature", I have no idea why that was such a big deal. It was a very strange argument.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not believe "sin nature" is true, so I don't really care so much either way. But I do believe that the lost are "mastered by sin"; "sin is their master", they are "enslaved by sin" simply because that is what the Bible says. Within that context I believe free-will exists for the lost.

So, in reality nothing more is necessary than to remove the master and the sin problem is solved huh? I mean if there is nothing wrong with our nature but the problem is in a master foreign to our nature, then would not that merely require removal of the master rather than any change to our spirit, soul and body? Why a "new creature" if the old self is merely under a bad master? Why not get rid of the master/law/principle and problem solved?

I don't know you may be a democrat as they also promote victimhood and that is what you are promoting by your sin master doctrine. The logical deduction of your doctrine is that people are born into this world without any responsibility for adam's sin and are just victims of a bad Master due to just being a partaker of flesh but no personal responsibility for Adam's sin. Hence, mere victims of a bad master who did nothing wrong personally, just victims.

 

[The Biblicist]

Within that context I believe free-will exists for the lost.

Well, nobody is born a saved person and so you reject the words of Christ concerning the lost man "no man CAN come to me" because you believe all lost men have FREE will that may come to him?

 

[JonC]

So, in reality nothing more is necessary than to remove the master and the sin problem is solved huh?

That conclusion is not honest to my argument, and I believe you know this. You are simply playing "word games" as I've repeatedly said that there is no one aspect that is more necessary than any other.

Again, look at what I said was accomplished at the atonement. Did I say that overcoming sin and death is the MOST important aspect, or did I agree with Scripture and say that it was an issue accomplished by the Atonement? I also said that redemption from sin (moral sin) was vital. And that the Atonement was purposed to defeat the works of the devil.

Your type of reply is one of the major problems we encounter on these topics. You seem to be more interested in "winning" than you are in honestly discussing the topic.